Time to start saying "NO"

[alan1]

Fact: it was time to say no a long time ago, but thanks to the momentum of Obama's idiotic decisions we can now form a nonpartisan group that will gain the power to rebuild the government, restoring the original form and power it had, giving us citizens the power once again.

I don't think we can pull off another revolution, a la 1700's style.

 

[KittenKoder]

Fact: it was time to say no a long time ago, but thanks to the momentum of Obama's idiotic decisions we can now form a nonpartisan group that will gain the power to rebuild the government, restoring the original form and power it had, giving us citizens the power once again.

I don't think we can pull off another revolution, a la 1700's style.

Probably not, but we have more fronts to utilize now. Which is why we need to defend more of our freedoms for the time being, and bide our time. See what happens the next election, if we can become singular enough and vote for a candidate not in one of the two "major" parties then we may not have to do anything more.If not, then we may have to utilize all our fronts available, the "battle" front would be only one, and probably a minor one, since most people are not that good with it anyway. But, to prevent the government from taking it to that front and keeping the power that way, we need people like those they call "gun nuts" to remain armed.

 

[Polk]

The resolutions to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq were both passed with democrat support and votes. Every budget during Mr Bush's term was passed with democrat votes. It was bi-partisanship.
You may not like the truth, but it's still the truth.

The bi-partisan double standard. If the Republicans pass a bill with one or two Democratic votes, it's bi-partisan. If the Democrats pass a bill with one or two Republican votes, it's not considered bi-partisan. Furthermore, the Democrats must make concessions to get more Republican votes, even though the remaining members of the Republican caucus are more conservative than the few Democratic votes the Republicans picked up were liberal.

You should stop spinning, you are getting dizzy.

It's not spin. A bill with 52 Republican votes and two Democratic ones is bipartisan, but one with 60 Democratic votes wouldn't be, even though that bill would actually represent a greater ideological diversity due to the size of the caucus.

 

[Ame®icano]

The estimate cost of the health care bill is one trillion over ten years, or 100 billion a year.
War allocations have been more than every year since FY2005.

The estimate.

We all know that we can't really rely on governemnt estimates. Usually they miss trillion here and there.

Lets talk about what we do know. Medicare.

Medicare cost taxpayers last year some $390 billion to cover 43 million people. Medicare costs are growing by nearly 8% per year. We know that Medicare is in big trouble.

You're saying that Obama plans to cover another 40 million people with just $100 billion a year. If you're buying that, I am not. I would like to, but I don't believe in fairy tales.

Obama is planning to borrow from Peter to pay Paul, meaning, he wants to take money from Medicare to pay for Obamacare. If $390 billion is not enough for 43 million Medicare recepients, do you really believe that additional $100 billion cover additional 40 million people?

The way I see it, it's either that Obama is lying about his estimates, or his plan would cut benefits for existing recepients. Neither is acceptable for me, and if you chose to believe in what he said over your own rationality, you probably need some serious help. Of course, if is covered.

 

[Polk]

The estimate cost of the health care bill is one trillion over ten years, or 100 billion a year.
War allocations have been more than every year since FY2005.

The estimate.

We all know that we can't really rely on governemnt estimates. Usually they miss trillion here and there.

If you're so distrustful of the numbers for this, why trust the numbers for anything?

Lets talk about what we do know. Medicare.

Medicare cost taxpayers last year some $390 billion to cover 43 million people. Medicare costs are growing by nearly 8% per year. We know that Medicare is in big trouble.

You're saying that Obama plans to cover another 40 million people with just $100 billion a year. If you're buying that, I am not. I would like to, but I don't believe in fairy tales.

Obama is planning to borrow from Peter to pay Paul, meaning, he wants to take money from Medicare to pay for Obamacare. If $390 billion is not enough for 43 million Medicare recepients, do you really believe that additional $100 billion cover additional 40 million people?

The way I see it, it's either that Obama is lying about his estimates, or his plan would cut benefits for existing recepients. Neither is acceptable for me, and if you chose to believe in what he said over your own rationality, you probably need some serious help. Of course, if is covered.

The problem with your assumption is that you assume the 40 million currently uninsured form a risk pool comparable to Medicare. That's beyond absurd. By the very nature of Medicare, you know off the top that they're all under age 65. We also know they're not people on disability for two years or longer and that they're not on dialysis. Guess what all of those things have in common? They make care significantly more expensive. A risk-pool that doesn't have any of those features is going to be significantly cheaper to cover than a risk pool in which every individuals meets at least one, and commonly more than one, of those conditions.

Additionally, for all the talk of "taking money from Medicare", that's not what's really being proposed. The cost savings from Medicare will primarily come from getting rid of Medicare Part C (Medicare Advantage). Medicare Part C doesn't do anything to improve the health of seniors. It's just a huge giveaway to insurance companies.

 

[Ame®icano]

If you're so distrustful of the numbers for this, why trust the numbers for anything?

I do trust in what I see. Government promises simply aren't providing anything that holds the truth.

For example, here are Medicaid numbers from CATO. Should I trust those numbers? Should you?

I don't trust government estimates. They were never correct nor even close to real cost, and will never be. Or should I say, I don't trust the governemnt.

The problem with your assumption is that you assume the 40 million currently uninsured form a risk pool comparable to Medicare. That's beyond absurd. By the very nature of Medicare, you know off the top that they're all under age 65. We also know they're not people on disability for two years or longer and that they're not on dialysis. Guess what all of those things have in common? They make care significantly more expensive. A risk-pool that doesn't have any of those features is going to be significantly cheaper to cover than a risk pool in which every individuals meets at least one, and commonly more than one, of those conditions.

Additionally, for all the talk of "taking money from Medicare", that's not what's really being proposed. The cost savings from Medicare will primarily come from getting rid of Medicare Part C (Medicare Advantage). Medicare Part C doesn't do anything to improve the health of seniors. It's just a huge giveaway to insurance companies.

Then I guess that you dont know what Part C is. Medicare Part C program is introduced to lover the cost of benefits by using private insurance companies approved by Medicare. Why would anyone get rid of Part C if is in most cases lower-cost alternative to the original Medicare. Obama problem is not money that is saved with Part C, but money that is going to private insurance companies (approved by Medicare). He want's to eliminate all private insurance.

 

[Polk]

If you're so distrustful of the numbers for this, why trust the numbers for anything?

I do trust in what I see. Government promises simply aren't providing anything that holds the truth.

For example, here are Medicaid numbers from CATO. Should I trust those numbers? Should you?

I don't trust government estimates. They were never correct nor even close to real cost, and will never be. Or should I say, I don't trust the governemnt.

And yet, you fully trust government numbers when you feel they prove your point...

The problem with your assumption is that you assume the 40 million currently uninsured form a risk pool comparable to Medicare. That's beyond absurd. By the very nature of Medicare, you know off the top that they're all under age 65. We also know they're not people on disability for two years or longer and that they're not on dialysis. Guess what all of those things have in common? They make care significantly more expensive. A risk-pool that doesn't have any of those features is going to be significantly cheaper to cover than a risk pool in which every individuals meets at least one, and commonly more than one, of those conditions.

Additionally, for all the talk of "taking money from Medicare", that's not what's really being proposed. The cost savings from Medicare will primarily come from getting rid of Medicare Part C (Medicare Advantage). Medicare Part C doesn't do anything to improve the health of seniors. It's just a huge giveaway to insurance companies.

Then I guess that you dont know what Part C is. Medicare Part C program is introduced to lover the cost of benefits by using private insurance companies approved by Medicare. Why would anyone get rid of Part C if is in most cases lower-cost alternative to the original Medicare. Obama problem is not money that is saved with Part C, but money that is going to private insurance companies (approved by Medicare). He want's to eliminate all private insurance.

Because it's not a lower cost alternative. It costs 20 percent more than standard Medicare. Also, this claim that he wants to eliminate private insurance is total bunk. The reality is there isn't a lot to attack in this bill, because it's pretty much common sense stuff. At that point, the only path for opposition is crazed claims about death panels.

 

[Ame®icano]

And yet, you fully trust government numbers when you feel they prove your point...

Then you missed my point. Actual cost of Medicare exceeds every previous government estimate.

Because it's not a lower cost alternative. It costs 20 percent more than standard Medicare. Also, this claim that he wants to eliminate private insurance is total bunk. The reality is there isn't a lot to attack in this bill, because it's pretty much common sense stuff. At that point, the only path for opposition is crazed claims about death panels.

Please don't change the subject. I am not talking about death panels, I am talking about numbers. I would need some proof for your claim that Medicare Advantage cost 20% more. According to Medicare official website, in most cases cost is lower.

 

[WillowTree]

OK. Here is a "no" to the old Republican neo-con wing that destroyed a Presidency and a working majority in both federal chambers, along with tanking the economy.

"No."

They did??? and all this time the pablum being spoon fed is that old white republicans are "irrelevant"

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

since you want to be techcal its only a 9 year span that Charlie Rangle's report where you got the 1.043 trillion dollar number from is talking about.

Even if i use your number your argument about the wars costing more is still wrong.

How do you figure that 140 billion a year is less than 100 billion a year? Also, the 1.043 isn't Charlie Rangel's number. That's the CBO's number.

COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War

link for you

Charlie Rangle asked the CBO to do a cost analasys and thats the number they gave him, thats why i call it the rangle number http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf

 

[strollingbones]

could we do the cash for clunker dishwashers first? then say no...i am really hoping they will include water heaters...how could they not...that is the major electric sucking appliances in most homes....i would love to replace mine...but hey it works...but a government rebate is so tempting but here is the problem....i got a stove that works fine....and a fridge that works fine...but i dont like them...fridge is hard as hell to clean...and the stove wont heat a pressure cooker ....them solid counter top shit sucks...so i would be more than glad to replace them...if yall are picking up a good bit of the tab.

 

[strollingbones]

and the way i understand the proposed cash 4 dishwashers...i dont have to turn my old stuff in..so it can be sold or donated...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

My diswasher sits there broken, its been that way for years. I'd take some of my tax money back in a cash for dishwasher clunkers program, as long as i dont have to claim it as income on my state taxes . (Yes massachussettes is making people pay unearned income tax on their cash for clunkers money)

 

[Polk]

And yet, you fully trust government numbers when you feel they prove your point...

Then you missed my point. Actual cost of Medicare exceeds every previous government estimate.

No, I get your point. The numbers are fine and dandy and fully acceptable when you feel the prove your point, but they're junk when they don't.

Because it's not a lower cost alternative. It costs 20 percent more than standard Medicare. Also, this claim that he wants to eliminate private insurance is total bunk. The reality is there isn't a lot to attack in this bill, because it's pretty much common sense stuff. At that point, the only path for opposition is crazed claims about death panels.

Please don't change the subject. I am not talking about death panels, I am talking about numbers. I would need some proof for your claim that Medicare Advantage cost 20% more. According to Medicare official website, in most cases cost is lower.

Where on that page does it say Medicare Advantage costs less than Medicare? O wait, it doesn't. You made that up.

 

[Polk]

since you want to be techcal its only a 9 year span that Charlie Rangle's report where you got the 1.043 trillion dollar number from is talking about.

Even if i use your number your argument about the wars costing more is still wrong.

How do you figure that 140 billion a year is less than 100 billion a year? Also, the 1.043 isn't Charlie Rangel's number. That's the CBO's number.

COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War

link for you

Once again, you're trying to play fast and loose with the numbers.

Charlie Rangle asked the CBO to do a cost analasys and thats the number they gave him, thats why i call it the rangle number http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf

No, you call it the Rangel number so you can claim it's a partisan figure.

 

[Ame®icano]

And yet, you fully trust government numbers when you feel they prove your point...

Then you missed my point. Actual cost of Medicare exceeds every previous government estimate.

No, I get your point. The numbers are fine and dandy and fully acceptable when you feel the prove your point, but they're junk when they don't.

I am still refusing to believe you're that stupid.

Lets try different approach. You're talking about cost of war in Iraq. What numbers are you using - money spent or projections?

Because it's not a lower cost alternative. It costs 20 percent more than standard Medicare. Also, this claim that he wants to eliminate private insurance is total bunk. The reality is there isn't a lot to attack in this bill, because it's pretty much common sense stuff. At that point, the only path for opposition is crazed claims about death panels.

Please don't change the subject. I am not talking about death panels, I am talking about numbers. I would need some proof for your claim that Medicare Advantage cost 20% more. According to Medicare official website, in most cases cost is lower.

Where on that page does it say Medicare Advantage costs less than Medicare? O wait, it doesn't. You made that up.

Have you logged in and checked what the actual cost is?

To read bit more about Medicare ant Parts, click here - Medicare Consumer Guide.

 

[Polk]

Then you missed my point. Actual cost of Medicare exceeds every previous government estimate.

No, I get your point. The numbers are fine and dandy and fully acceptable when you feel the prove your point, but they're junk when they don't.

I am still refusing to believe you're that stupid.

Lets try different approach. You're talking about cost of war in Iraq. What numbers are you using - money spent or projections?

I'm using the amount appropriated for it. Of course, we didn't have cost projections for the war (beyond Bush and company's claims it would pay for itself).

Please don't change the subject. I am not talking about death panels, I am talking about numbers. I would need some proof for your claim that Medicare Advantage cost 20% more. According to Medicare official website, in most cases cost is lower.

Where on that page does it say Medicare Advantage costs less than Medicare? O wait, it doesn't. You made that up.

Have you logged in and checked what the actual cost is?

To read bit more about Medicare ant Parts, click here - Medicare Consumer Guide.

That site doesn't back up your claim that Medicare Advantage is cheaper to taxpayers than traditional Medicare. We can look at the history of Medicare Advantage payouts to see the program is more expensive. When the program was first created, very few entered in to it. Why? Because most insurance companies would not issue the policies because they would have taken a loss on each policy issued (since the amount the government gave the insurance companies was less than premiums for Medicare, hence why the program was billed as a savings measure). Insurance companies don't start offering Medicare Advantage policies on a wide scale until after payouts are increased to a higher amount than the Medicare baseline.

 

[jillian]

When is enough, enough? The deficit was projected to be 7 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Now they just came out with new numbers and are saying the deficit is projected to be 10 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Last month alone we paid over a billion dollars on just the interest to China on the money we owe them. We are doing nothing to repay this huge debt except paying the interest on the loan. Congress is trying to pass a health care reform bill that will cost something over a trillion dollars. In the past few months we have spent a trillion dollars on things such as bank bailouts, Stimulus Package, Cash for Clunkers, and the list goes on and on. When is enough, enough? I think it's past time for the government to stop spending money like it's going out of style and begin to repay all of our debt before we add anything else to that debt. If we don't do this there is going to be some very high inflation in this country and the dollar isn't going to be worth the paper it's printed on. What say you? Isn't this spending getting way out of hand?

Maybe you should have said "NO" when 200 billion got poured into a pointless war of choicec in Iraq, eh?

or when baby bush was the only leader in history to cut taxes during wartime....

NOW you wake up?

too funny...

and if mccain got elected and said he wanted to open a third front in Iran, you'd be saying...

"you go, boy!"

 

[KittenKoder]

200 billion is pocket change compared to 3 trillion.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

When is enough, enough? The deficit was projected to be 7 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Now they just came out with new numbers and are saying the deficit is projected to be 10 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Last month alone we paid over a billion dollars on just the interest to China on the money we owe them. We are doing nothing to repay this huge debt except paying the interest on the loan. Congress is trying to pass a health care reform bill that will cost something over a trillion dollars. In the past few months we have spent a trillion dollars on things such as bank bailouts, Stimulus Package, Cash for Clunkers, and the list goes on and on. When is enough, enough? I think it's past time for the government to stop spending money like it's going out of style and begin to repay all of our debt before we add anything else to that debt. If we don't do this there is going to be some very high inflation in this country and the dollar isn't going to be worth the paper it's printed on. What say you? Isn't this spending getting way out of hand?

Maybe you should have said "NO" when 200 billion got poured into a pointless war of choicec in Iraq, eh?

or when baby bush was the only leader in history to cut taxes during wartime....

NOW you wake up?

too funny...

and if mccain got elected and said he wanted to open a third front in Iran, you'd be saying...

"you go, boy!"

Yes if only my democrat representatives in the senate voted NO on the Iraq war maybe bush wouldn't have had the authority to start that war. At least kennedy voted no, kerry voted yes.

Bush was a social conservative only. Financially he was no conservative, he was the biggest defecit spender ever (Obama is on track to destroy Bush's hideous debt spending record). Hell Teddy Kennedy went along with Bush's education reform, why do you think that is....because Bush was very liberal in some of his positions such as education, medicare reform, and border security.



Fast and loose with my numbers, PRICELESS